Vol. 14, Part II · pages 251–255

1031 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL Legislature of the country, has a right to interfere but not the present Parliament. They rather prefer that the matter should be completely looked after and dealt with by those who will come after this Parliament is dissolved. So far as the first school is concerned I think, as was said rightly by Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, it is too late in the day. Continually, in the course of the last 150 years, legislation after legislation has been passed by the Central Legislature—whatever the denomination of that legislature may have been—and all those things have become part and parcel of the Hindu community and its life. When I said that soon after the passing of this code, same thing would happen, my hon. friend Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee was not agreeable. He has accused us, namely the Members of the Treasury Bench of suffering from “Secularities”. I should say, knowing as I do, his views of social reform, knowing as I do that he comes from Bengal, a province where social reform was first mooted, beginning with Raja Ram Mohan Roy and carried on by Kesav Chandra Sen, Tagore and other people of great importance and consequence, that I cannot believe that he is seriously opposed to what is being proposed in the Hindu Code, but probably he is suffering from ‘electionitis’ and if that is so, the cure and remedy will be provided for in the general election. He agreed that it is very difficult to say on which side is the public opinion. I think he is right. We might claim public opinion to be……. Pandit Malaviya (Uttar Pradesh) : Will the Government be prepared to make this Hindu Code one of the issues in the election ? Shri Gadgil : In spite of the Government, it has already become. The point is that it is difficult to say on which side the public opinion is. I want to ask in all humility one question to the hon. Members of this House, Has or has not the Government which still carried the confidence of this House some right to initiate social reform, not merely the right, but a duty enjoyed on this Government in terms of the clauses of the Constitution ? You have given us certain directives ; you have laid down the objectives. If we do not do anything on those lines, the electorate might turn round and say : Well you passed this constitution merely to fool us. Half the population in this country, namely, the women will say : You talk of social equality but where is that social equality. ( An hon. Member : Question). I am sure the hon. Member will lose in his own house if he takes a referendum. Pandit Maitra (West Bengal) : Does the hon. Member say half a dozen women of half the population ?

1032 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Gadgil : I take a better view of my sisters than my hon. friend is prepared to concede. However, as my hon. friend said, the thing will be evident a few months hence. The point is that the legislature has pressed a number of statutes affecting Hindu life, Hindu marriage, divorce, in fact every aspect of the law. Therefore, we cannot say now that this Parliament has no right. The question whether this Parliament has a right or not. I have already answered. So far this Parliament has been considered to be competent enough to make a constitution for this country and it passes my comprehension to accept a proposition that this Parliament is incompetent to pass an ordinary law. Pandit Maitra : The House was elected for giving a constitution. Shri Gadgil : This very House passed the Constitution in which they passed the Chapter relating to transitory provisions. I do not think that my hon. friend Pandit Maitra objected then and said that this Parliament should have no right to govern from now till the new House comes into existence after the general elections. Pandit Maitra : That is nobody’s case. Shri Gadgil : I am glad. What is after all that is attempted to be done ? As I said 80 per cent, is merely a collection of the existing statutes either passed by the Central Legislature or passed by the State Legislature. Dr. Syama Prasad was very eloquent over Dharmic marriage. I do not think that the Code prevents it. There is free scope from the Dhushyanta Shakuntala type of marriage to Prithviraj Samyugita type of marriage, namely from Gandharva to the Rakshasa type and all the eight forms can be practised by any Member of this House or by the public outside. This Code does not prevent love-making, it does not prevent eloping with bride’s consent even against the consent of the parents. So far as eight forms of Hindu sacramental marriage are concerned, they are not affected in the least. What is the grievance ? Is it because the word ‘sacramental’ has been changed into Dharmic ? It was changed because all of us wished it; it conveys no meaning and therefore we said : let us take the word Dharmic which will fit in and convey some meaning, and that is why ‘ Dharmic’ was used. An Hon. Member : It is a misnomer. Shri Gadgil : My hon. friend Dr. Syama Prasad was very eloquent over the conception of Hindu ‘marriage’. Those noble sentiments I personally share. Marriage is something more than mere union of bodies, it is a co-partnership ; it is joint endeavour for spiritual uplift;

1033 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL it is so to say a custodian of confidences and feelings which cannot be expressed in any language of the world. It is a noble conception : I do share that but at the same time it does happen that sometime an ideal is perverted. We find that in a progressive society things happen which have got to be taken notice of by those who are leaders of society and who are leaders of thought. I today, particularly on account of our contact with the West, we have somehow or other to go down in certain respects, it does not mean that our culture is less ; it only means a challenge to us to reform. We have got the genius to adopt, we had to act, and therefore, those legislations to which reference was made by my hon. friend, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee were quite justified. What is this prevention of a marriage between a person belonging. to one community and a woman belonging to another ? Does it sound very well in our modern days, in the year 1951 ? Does it sound very well that a man because he is born in a particular community that he must remain outside the boundaries of the village perpetually ? Does it sound very well that because a man belonging to a downtrodden caste today by his merit has assumed a position of great inportance and is learned today, he must not be given the same social status, the same social welcome, the same social reception as we give to a person belonging to another caste ? Is the Varna to be determined irrespective of guna or it has to be determined in the context of guna or in other words “accomplishment” ? That is a challenge to your sense of equality. If today the old ban against Pratiloma marriage is completely broken, you should welcome it. That is exactly what is being attempted. Why should there be such differences ? If marriage is a matter of free choice, why should there be legal impediments in it ? Why should a person belonging to one section or one community not marry a woman belonging to another ? All these artificial man-made impediments must go. I do not remember any case in which the son of a Brahmin was born with a copy of Vedas or a Kshatrya born with a sword or a Harijan born with a broom. At birth they are all alike and at death they are all alike. In between the two, it is the duty of the society and the State to see that the same atmosphere of equality shall prevail. Anybody who argues against this, argues against humanity, argues against the very principle which goes to make a man, argues against self-respect. What is being done here ? Nothing contrary to our old traditions is being attempted. On the contrary, my accusation against my friend and colleague Dr. Ambedkar is that as he is growing old and old, he is growing less and less enthusiastic about social reform. Ten years ago,

1034 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES I think his language would have been more vitriolic ; today he is the very soul of moderation. He said the other day, “Anyhow, with something changed here, something cut off there, and something added or substracted, let me see the Hindu Code through because it will be considered at least one honest attempt by the present generation to put matters right”. He is so anxious. He is in a mood to be prepared to give and take. I would therefore urge on the Members who are keen on opposing to see whether that is not a situation which we should avail of. I warn you that the next Parliament which will be elected on adult franchise is bound to be more radical in the matter of marriage and divorce…….. Some Hon. Members : Leave it to the next Parliament. Shri Gadgil : …….although it may not be so radical to begin with in the matter of property. As regards, marriage, as regards divorce, I have not the slightest doubt, at least to the extent I know the mind and general outlook of those who inhabit my part of the country, Maharashtra. Shri Bhatt (Bombay) : Leave it to the next Parliament. Shri Gadgil : We would have welcomed it. I would have agreed to that if there had been no duty cast upon us to see that whatever ideals and objectives are embodied in the Constitution should be given effect to as far as possible. It is because of this duty. I have agreed to support this code. Shri Bhatt : The skies are not failing today. Shri Gadgil : Will the heavens fall if it is passed ? The sky is above and we are below. See what things are happening down here. Shri R. C. Upadhyaya (Rajasthan) : That is why it does not rain. Shri Gadgil : Now Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee asked. “Why monogamy only for the Hindus ?”. I ask one question. If monogamy is a good ideal, does it become bad because somebody else does not follow ? We talk of Ram Rajya. If there is anything in the life and career of the Great Rama, it is his Eka Pathni Vrath. I want to test your sincerity. Are you for Ram Rajya ? Then, give support for this part at least. It is no good talking about Ram Rajya when it suits you for election purposes and when it does not suit you.... Shri R. K. Chaudhuri : What about Dasaratha Rajya ? What did Dasaratha who was the father of Rama do ? Shri Gadgil : That is only an improvement by a new generation over the old. Because he knew the troubles of having three mothers,

1035 DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL he decided that his sons should have only one. That only shows how things progress. An hon. Member : Was there divorce ? Shri Gadgil : There was that custom. u"Vs e`rs izozftus Dyhcsp ifrrs irkS A ifrjU;r~ fo/h;rs A [When the husband is lost, dies, goes to another land, becomes impotent or morally degenerate, another one is allowed.] This proves it. Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee’s argument was that if it is good, let it be made applicable also to the Muslim community. I have no doubt that the Government either this or the Government that will come in . power after the General Elections will not shirk to bring in a measure of that kind in which this particular law will be applicable to every one irrespective of religion. Some hon. Members : Why not now ? Shri Gadgil : As a matter of fact, I know that in Bombay, when the bill for Monogamy was under discussion, the same line of criticism which was adopted by Dr. Mookerjee yesterday, was taken by many a Member in the Bombay Legislative Assembly. I remember that the Government of Bombay stated through their Minister that a Bill of that character would be welcome. Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee somehow or other thinks that this Government is nervous and may not bring some thing which may offend the Muslim community. I ask him just to consider if 90 per cent, of the people in this country, who are Hindus, agree to this measure, will it or will it not strengthen the hands of the Government to pass a legislation for the remaining ten per cent ? By accepting this, you will strengthen the hands of Government. I might here mention one instance which I am sure you will recall: not you particularly. In 1930, when the first Child Marriage Restraint Bill was under consideration, to which subsequent amendments were moved by my hon. friend Mr. B. Das in 1936, when the original Bill was under discussion in this very Hall. Mr. Jinnah supported it, although the rest of the Mohammedan leaders who were Members here opposed it, on the ground that it was interference with the personal law of the Muslim community. His words are, if there is a conflict between religion and public morality, the latter shall prevail, Mullahas or no Mullahas. You can find this out from the reports of the Legislative Assembly proceedings that this was his stand. If we are convinced that to have